Re: [Gimp-user] Selection to Path

[akovia <akovia1 eml cc>]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, at 05:04 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 26/02/16 18:59, akovia wrote:
> > Just curious if there was any way to bypass or modify the "Selection to
> > Path Advanced Settings" algorithms when working with the Ellipse
> > Selection Tool? A simple circle or ellipse produces a path with so many
> > unnecessary and non symmetric nodes that it makes it pretty useless. A
> > square selection will always give you 4 nodes, but I'm not sure why a
> > circle/ellipse selection will not.
> >
> > There are tons of scripts/tools (mostly by ofnuts) that makes it less
> > painful to make a true circle path, but it seems like something that
> > should be easy to do with built in functions, and nothing would be
> > easier than being able to use the ellipse tool to eyeball your
> > ellipse/circle, then convert to path.
>
> The problem is that once the selection is created, Gimp completely 
> forgets that it came out of the ellipse selection tool. The same can be 
> said for the rounded rectangle selection.
>
> You have a a very valid point however, getting a circle/ellipse 
> selection to overlap an existing circle/ellipse is not very easy; 
> framing it with a rectangle selection and then getting the 
> circle/ellipse that fits the rectangle would often be easier.
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-user-list gnome org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Thanks for the explanation. 
I actually thought about it not knowing it was created by the ellipse
tool, but I figured it must have had something to do with the "Selection
to
 Path Advanced Settings" since I assumed the ellipse tool would make a
 perfect circle/ellipse, and the vast settings in the advanced dialog
 was muffing it up in favor of better results over a wider range of
 paths.

I also figured it must be something difficult or it would have been
implemented sooner. It just seems like one of those obvious things you'd
expect to work but doesn't. I've worked around it for years but was
curious what the hitch was.
-- 
  akovia